Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Trailrunner7 writes "A group of six Congressmen have asked President Barack Obama to remove James Clapper as director of national intelligence as a result of his misstatements to Congress about the NSA's dragnet data-collection programs. The group, led by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), said that Clapper's role as DNI 'is incompatible with the goal of restoring trust in our security programs.' Clapper is the former head of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and has been DNI since 2010. In their letter to Obama, the group of Congressmen calling for his ouster said that he lied to Congress and should no longer be in office. 'The continued role of James Clapper as Director of National Intelligence is incompatible with the goal of restoring trust in our security programs and ensuring the highest level of transparency. Director Clapper continues to hold his position despite lying to Congress, under oath, about the existence of bulk data collection programs in March 2013. Asking Director Clapper, and other federal intelligence officials who misrepresented programs to Congress and the courts, to report to you on needed reforms and the future role of government surveillance is not a credible solution,' the letter from Issa, Ted Poe, Paul Broun, Doug Collins, Walter Jones and Alan Grayson says." "Misstatement," of course, being the favorite euphemism for "lie."

This will just be another example of how de-fanged Congress has become. By all rights clapper should be removed. He lied under oath. Period. But the imperial presidency (which started under Bush and has only grown stronger under Obama) can and will ignore this.

if Holder still has his job after all the scandal and corruption, the chances a crony holding a key office and overseeing the surveillance program is canned for doing exactly what the emperor says? Zero point zero.

> But the imperial presidency (which started under Bush and has only grown stronger under Obama)

ROTFL. Bush Jr was a slightly weaker than average president. If you want to see an imperial presidency, look at Roosevelt, Lincoln or Kennedy. Congress didn't authorize the civil war, Lincoln sent the army to destroy the south by his own executive order. Kennedy too sent the armed forces into the south to enforce desegregation, on his own initiative. Bush sought (and received) congressional approval for what his predecessors would have called "routine military exercises".

One thing is new - presidents in the past have left Congress out of the decision making, but the didn't tend to flatly defy Congress, declaring that they have chosen to ignore the law and write their own. Obama's unilateral changes to Obamacare such as delaying the employer mandate for a year is a new kind of imperial presidency. Congress passed the mandate and Obama immediately said "nope, I'm going to ignore the law and declare my own law instead." I don't think even Roosevelt had done that.

Congress passed the mandate and Obama immediately said "nope, I'm going to ignore the law and declare my own law instead." I don't think even Roosevelt had done that.

Right after Pearl Harbor, Congress passed declarations of war against Germany and Japan (in response to their declarations of war against us). At that point Roosevelt told Congress that they should go into Recess until the War was over.

"Bush Jr was a slightly weaker than average president. If you want to see an imperial presidency, look at Roosevelt, Lincoln or Kennedy. Congress didn't authorize the civil war, Lincoln sent the army to destroy the south by his own executive order. Kennedy too sent the armed forces into the south to enforce desegregation, on his own initiative. Bush sought (and received) congressional approval for what his predecessors would have called "routine military exercises"."

That's insanely ludicrous. Bush started at least two major wars with no declaration of war. One against an entirely unrelated country on totally fallacious charges. Were you paying attention for like 10 years when the armed forces were complaining about how thin they were stretched and couldn't meet recruiting goals? Soldiers being called back after retirement for 3, 4, 5, 6 tours of duty? Bush ripping up the nuclear SALT treaty unilaterally? There's whole books written about how Cheney alone was the most powerful vice-president in history.

There's whole books written about how Cheney alone was the most powerful vice-president in history.

I think this was the key. Bush Jr, by himself, was a weaker than average President. However, he had an administration that pushed the limits of Executive Branch power. Cheney et all wanted the President to be the supreme ruler unanswerable to anyone so that the Democrats couldn't stop them from doing what they wanted to do. Of course, the danger with this is that - if you get it - it is only a matter of time before "that other party" gains control of this seat of power and you are faced with the receiving end of the power*. Because, no matter what they say while campaigning, no politician is going to roll back Presidential powers. At best, they'll just expand them at a slower pace or in different areas than the other guy would.

* Thus my constant rule of determining whether a certain government official should have a certain power: How would you like it if the person occupying that position had the exact opposite political views that you do and used that power? If you'd oppose that, then you can't support the official (presumably from "your party") having that power at all.

Awesome post. And, I love your * addon. Partisan politics allows people to approve of increased power while their own fair haired child occupies the Oval Office. None of the nitwits gives a thought to eight years down the road, when some redheaded stepchild occupies that same office.

Congress passed the mandate and Obama immediately said "nope, I'm going to ignore the law and declare my own law instead."

Enforcement of the Law - even selective enforcement - is the purview of the President. There was an entire segment on NPR yesterday about the Executive Power of the President and how presidents have been using Executive Orders for doing this kind of thing throughout US history - back to George Washington (who issued 8).

According to that segment, and this page on Executive Orders [ucsb.edu], Obama (168) has issued fewer than Bush-II (291), Clinton (364), Bush-I (166), and Regan (381) -- even by term. FDR issued the most at 3,522.

I wasn't drawing any conclusions, simply stating facts. With his/her comment "I'm going to ignore the law and declare my own law instead" the previous poster seemed to think that Obama was doing something new, unusual and/or unlawful. which is untrue.

The NPR segment on Executive Orders was rather interesting, discussing the types of things the President can and cannot do. He cannot make laws, but in many cases can stipulate how laws will be enforced. The President can also use EO to establish requiremen

One thing is new - presidents in the past have left Congress out of the decision making, but the didn't tend to flatly defy Congress, declaring that they have chosen to ignore the law and write their own.

I don't think ignoring Congress is new. This quote [wikipedia.org] may be apocryphal but Jackson's actions, or lack of, aren't. "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!". An easy recent target is this [washingtonpost.com]. Personally, my humble opinion is that the Executive Branch does have the authority to not enforce a law. However, I do not believe the Executive Branch has the authority to enforce a law that doesn't exist. I say this with trepidation but I think the Executive Branch should only act under approval fr

I thought of that non-quote as I wrote it, too. The subject does remind you of the saying.However, Jackson was supporting the exclusive power of Congress over Indian affairs, not snubbing Congress.Jackson also was not changing or refusing to enforce any law. He only observed that the officials in Georgia would likely disregard a court decision. If the court had ordered Jackson to do something, then it might be in some way comparable. However, the court ordered Georgia officials to release the men. Presi

Monroe chose a certain interpretation of the bill _as_he_signed_it_into_law. The same is true of any Bush signing statements - they are commentary on the new law at the time the law is enacted.

With Obamacare, the law was passed, then a year later Obama declared he was going to ignore it - and then declared brand new law to replace it, just making something up unilateraly and declaring it to be the law of the land.

Some changes Obama unilaterally decided on include eliminating the funding source, the mandate, and declaring his union buddies don't have to comply with the law. (Equal protection clause, anyone?).

You say "you alleged". Leaders of his own party have said his overreach into writing his own law, rather than going to congress, is an impeachable offense; "no question about it, not even close", democrat congressmen have said. You like the guy, that's fine, I get that. Be honest with yourself, though, he's not perfect, not anywhere close to perfect. One of those imperfections is that he's thoroughly confused about his role vis-a-vis congress.

To be fair, I think the guy should be removed from office. The problem as I see it is that Congress demands that every appointee be removed if they make any mistake, no matter how minor or (as in this case) serious. Meanwhile, some appointees can never get approved under any circumstances.

Given that environment, I can see why Obama won't fire the guy. There's a chance Obama would not get a replacement confirmed by the end of his term.

The whole process, and most everyone involved in it, sucks all around.

I figure they are just looking for a fall guy. Why shouldn't Obama let him go (with a nice severance no doubt) and just bring in his next yes-man? How hard can that be? Even if he can ignore congress, why play that card here?

This is obviously all BS anyway. These programs have been over the top since well before 2010! Either Congress has been complicit all along or they are very naive and he was hardly the first or only person to lie to them. In that case why single him out as opposed to cleaning hous

You are obviously fairly young. Go back a bit in time, say 1971 or so. Check out Nixon's Marine Guards. From high plumes on their hats to gold braid everywhere else. That's what an imperial presidency looked like. In the background AT&T (the one and only national telephone company at the time) and IT&T (all of your international phone lines) basically worked for Nixon. Targeting Tea Partiers at the IRS? A little innocent fun. Back then the IRS worked for the White House and Nixon's enemies' (there was an actual list) were routinely raked over the IRS coals.

By all rights he should be in jail. We can argue all day about the trade-offs between privacy and security, but one thing is simply not arguable--it is the responsibility of Congress to debate this issues and decide on policies and limits in our name. What he did was to try to subvert that.

Dunno about CP but Paul Broun is my congress critter and he's currently giving away an AK-15 to promote gun rights. I entered the drawing. Not that I particularly want it, but I'd rather I have it where I know I can stick it in a gun safe than have someone else in my neighborhood have it.

I prefer the Waldorf Insult Salad Shooter less lethal weapon since it's multi-threat. (Plus I like gadgets.) The first volley is tasty salads to distract and calm demonstrators with tasty greens and tangy dressings. If that doesn't work it rapid fires insults until their inner child is bruised enough that they leave. It also has a final emergency mode in which it directly sprays the vinegar and oil dressing. It makes the ground too slick to walk on and man does that vinegar sting!

I think with what we know about the NSA being able to inject malware onto targets' systems, there's always plausible deniability about anything found on home machines. "The NSA put it there" is now unfalsifiable, and always can be used to plant reasonable doubt. Means, motive, what else do you need?

I'm pretty sure that Clapper could have answered "I cannot answer that question in a public session, as it would violate the National Security Act of 1945."

In previous Congressional hearings regarding CIA malfeasance (Church hearings in the 1970s, Iran / Contra in the 1980s, 9/11 Commission, etc.) they have had closed sessions where the disclosure of classified information or the identity of covert operatives may be necessary. The transcripts are then redacted before release.

While I have my doubts about Clapper, it really doesn't help the cause when you put a non-credible person at the front. Issa will say or do anything that benefits him, and that's not invective, it's documented fact.

The Right Wingers are at least smart enough to either not lie under oath or not get caught doing so. Or at least since Nixon. Or at least not that anybody has really noticed. Or...oh, whatever, they are both crooked.

It's not a "lie" if they aren't convicted, and even then for most people it will still be a "misstatement".

The win at all costs nature that American politics have turned into as of late have made seeing just how blatant a lie you can get away with part of the game rather than something to be avoided.

Asking nicely for his removal will accomplish nothing at all. Either go for conviction or don't bother. Saying "he's not nice and we don't like him anymore" is not going do anything other than cause the administration to chuckle.

Yep. That our Congress has lacked the will to call this man on the crimes he has plainly committed is a sign that our government is beginning to fail. We could debate about when that failure really began, but when the head of a rogue agency is allowed to metaphorically extend his middle finger to the body of elected officials charged with the oversight of him and his agency, that failure is well established.

And Pete Seeger had the balls to stand up for what he believed and did not lie or change his story. Politicians and bureaucrats lie instinctively, but will happily repudiate themselves at a later date if it keeps them in power.

They haven't lacked the will. Are you saying that Issa wouldn't do it tomorrow if he could? It's that Democrats and the media, so far are unwilling to cast blame for any of the various scandals including this one because the blame lies on their side. They are willing to say how bad it is, and then they shrug their shoulders and do it again with the next one. Contrast with the Bush era when they were too willing to cast blame, even when it was unwarranted.

This is wrong. Considering Issa is one of the people actually pushing back against the NSA, suing without a solid foundation/way to prove it's solidly outside of the realm of law as only that information is starting to trickle out now (initial leaks did not do this), the POTUS will tear him apart if he does some bullshit/shaky lawsuit that even the judges will be compelled to dismiss.

It sucks, but both laws need to reformed AND people need to be held accountable. You can't do one without the other.

*Congress* is worried about liars???? Who the hell do they think they are? Pot, meet kettle. Congressmen themselves like like dogs as a matter of course, but they will be all upset if anyone lies to them??? Yeah, right.

Congress has the authority to remove people from positions in the federal government on their own. Why don't they use it?

And no, it doesn't need to be an impeachment of the President, it can be any officer or person holding a position of trust in the U.S. government. Dozens of impeachment bills are presented every year in Congress, where they seldom get any sort of attention even when they pass as it is usually for obscure offices or minor judges. if these congressmen were serious, they would just start the process and hold that over the head of President Obama to act before they do.

It just seems that in this case talk is cheap, as if filing a bill is something not in their authority.

Probably because bi-partisanship in Congress is non-existent... and whenever one party proposes a bill/amendment/impeachment/takeout menu, it's immediately rejected by the other party. So the only way for anyone to do anything is to put it on the shoulders of the *others* in a big PR stunt-type action that makes the 24 hour news cycle giddy.

Boldly lying to Congress is usually a good way to get bipartisan support.... to get you slapped in some official manner. There is also the ability to "censure" somebody in the federal government or to offer a "contempt of Congress" resolution as well. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Your statement would be correct if it wasn't for the fact that there were Democrats who signed this letter and that people of both parties are trying to run for cover to get on the popular side of this issue (which also cuts across both parties except for diehard fanatics). Besides, submitting a bill for consideration doesn't require the support of half of the members of any chamber, it only needs a single member of congress to submit the legislation for consideration... and the other co-signers of the letter could simply be co-signers of the legislation instead. If they submitted the legislation and it was held up in committee.... that is something they could similarly use to take back to their constituents and say "I did everything I could to remove this asshat, but the logjam in Washington kept me from getting it done."

I'm saying that the entire notion of begging the President to fire the guy when you have this kind of authority seems stupid and even ignorant on the part of these Congressmen. Sending a letter to the President that you have already submitted such legislation and would like him to preempt such action before it gets to the full House for consideration is IMHO a much stronger message. It is almost as if these guys simply don't want to act at all.

Not only that, isn't lying under oath to congress a criminal offense? If he lied, why don't they charge him?

James Clapper and Congress to a lesser extent are behaving exactly as predicted by the Iron Law of Bureaucracy [wikipedia.org] which states:

"In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."

If there is any merit to the adage "Knowledge is Power" then the usurpation by the NSA in totalitarian total access certainly empowers the

It's a good start, although I'd like "Removed from his position" to be replaced with "Prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

More people need to be shitcanned over this but, really, the fact that these programs are event "arguably" legal is the major issue here. The laws that allow the NSA to snoop on all of us need to be repealed first and foremost.

More people need to be shitcanned over this but, really, the fact that these programs are event "arguably" legal is the major issue here. The laws that allow the NSA to snoop on all of us need to be repealed first and foremost.

Our country needs a 'legal audit' - basically, sit two (non-politically-affiliated, but well versed in Constitutional law) people down with red pens, have them go over every single statute in the USC, and determine if it's Constitutional or not.

There will be obvious "this is OK" and "this is unconstitutional" stuff, and anything that seems like a grey area can be bookmarked for further scrutiny and discussion.

I will remind you that Barry Bonds went to jail for lying to Congress.

Wait, what? Barry Bonds was convicted of obstruction of justice in relation to his grand jury testimony in 2003 and was sentenced to house arrest & probation.No lying (perjury), no Congress, and no jail. You managed to get just about every fact wrong.

If a regular joe lied to congress, under oath, they'd send his ass up the river on a multitude of charges running the gamut from conspiracy to perjury to treason. Clapper should be judged by the same laws. Let a jury decide.

Most of the elected represenititives need a bit of encouragement. Let your member of the US house [house.gov] know you would like them to support theses efforts. Also do the same for your senators [senate.gov].

Reading the questions that were asked and the responses he gave, it's pretty hard to believe Clapper didn't understand what was being asked. Personally, I think the concepts of "data" versus "metadata" and "known-to-be US citizens" versus "unknown/haven't checked" were so muddied in his head (and the CIA/NSA generally) that he might have thought he was answering honestly. It reminds me of the days when people emphatically said "Of course the US doesn't torture prisoners"... "for a very special and legally-dubious definition of what constitutes 'torture'". Twist words and definitions long enough and you start believing the new definitions yourself, but that makes it hard to communicate with others. "Oh! By 'any data on US citizens' you meant the normal, English, everyday meaning of the word 'data', not the twisted, something-other-than-metadata meaning we use at the CIA/NSA? And we'll just casually pretend that we don't know if the people we're sweeping up are US citizens or not, even though they probably are given the vast scope of collection."

So, with what we know about the program now, either: 1) the guy was lying intentionally, or 2) he's innocent but incompetent because he didn't understand the nature of the programs that were underway and/or 3) he couldn't correctly communicate with the legislators asking him to explain what was going on in plain language. That's a failure of his duty any way you look at it. Malicious intent or incompetent. Take your pick.

At that kind of level on an important issue, those are grounds for firing regardless of whether he was "lying".

I am a United States [Senator | Representative]. I have far, far too much integrity to be at all influenced by the [countless | untold | several] millions of dollars contributed to my campaign by that [lobbyist | special interest | one percenter | lying pond scum]!

He belongs in prison, along with his deputies that obeyed his orders to violate the Constitution thousands of times. Same goes for Keith Alexander. Obama, too, must be impeached for signing off on all of it. We are at a 200-year break point. Either the American citizenry reasserts its primacy in the democracy and teaches all and sundry again that the law is for everybody, we will lose it all for the next century or two. I would prefer we take those steps now when we still have means to attack the corruption rather than several generations deep into the police state when we will have nothing.

Alberto Gonzalez flat out lied to Congress and got a week to "correct" his testimony and I was tearing my hair out. Clapper did the same and it's hardly registered in public discourse. If Congress gets lied to their oversight obligations are compromised which is intolerable.

This softball approach to politics is annoying especially when the Obama regime plays anything but hard ball. He is currently using his office to go after critics and opponents at a rate and in ways unheard of before. It's almost as if he's working against a clock. I fear for what's next.

What is it about headlines that makes people unwilling to use the word "and"? I can understand it in ye olde days of printe when you might need to claw baxk whatever space you could (did it then just become a convention?), but it's not like you'll break teh internets with a few extra characters.

Clinton blatantly led bout his relationship with Lewinski, for instance... Didn't really do him any harm. The American people have already shown they can tolerate lying from people in office, so what's the problem?

Director Clapper did NOT lie under oath at a Congressional hearing. He was never sworn in.

It is common practice *cough* these days *cough* on Capital Hill for high ranking officials to refuse to be sworn in at any hearing. I know, sounds crazy but it happens. Why, you ask? They say it's because, and I shit you not, it would be an insult to their integrity.

I say again, I shit you not.

This is why Clapper is not in contempt of Congress. And that's a fact Jack.

When I'm in agreement with a Republican but it's pretty clear that Clapper did nothing but lie. And I find it amusing that congressmen in general are getting their underwear in a bunch because they found out the NSA is spying on them too. Oh well.

It seems to me that Congress needs to act on this if our children are to have a republic. We've already heard that the Supreme Court, the highest institution of an entire branch of government, "lacks jurisdiction" to review the NSA's secret court decisions, which technically makes their secret court the highest in the land. If the NSA cannot be held accountable to Congress, there goes another branch. This looks like a coup.

What exactly are you talking about? Contempt of Congress is a crime. They don't even need the executive or judicial branches. The Congressional Sergeant at Arms has the power to arrest someone, bring them to trial in Congress, and imprison them in the Capitol jail. This power was upheld by the Supreme Court in Anderson vs. Dunn (1821).

But IANAL, so maybe you know something that I don't. To what limitation on this power do you refer?

No, people are black when it fits the desired political narrative ala Obama. People can also be white when it fits the political narrative ala George Zimmerman. To the left, everything is viewed through the lens of race. The politcal value of a story is dictated by the subject. A black, poor, sexually unique person is at one side of the spectrum (the indisputibly good side), and a white, rich, male is on the other (the indisputibly evil side). Everybody falls on this scale and it is to be the primary f

Not socioeconomic circles. Clapper is a cop. Cops never get charged with perjury. Never.

As DA aren't doing their job, defense attorneys should setup a web site and collect transcripts of cops testilying. Searchable by cop name and department. Court reporters own the copyright to transcripts. So it will have to be overseas.